Contention and Discussion -- Counsel vs. Counsel

(More of me being truculent here.)

What do you do when you can't seem to agree with a Church leader?

As a good member of the Church, you've raised your hand to sustain your fellow members in their callings. But someone has made a decision you just can't accept.

I worked this out three times, first for a friend, then later for myself, then once again for myself when I could not convince myself. I always come to the same conclusions.

Contention --

3 Nephi 11: 29, 30:

... he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

A question that should occur to you is, what is Jesus' doctrine? If you keep reading there, you'll find it in the immediately following verses, faith (in Jesus Christ), repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, just like it says in the fourth Article of Faith. Any time you get lost, return to the Articles of Faith, particular number Four, to re-orient yourself. (Don't forget Articles One through Three, and remember what Jesus Christ's name means. He really is our rock of salvation. He really is there for us.)

So, contention is evil. That means we should never disagree, right?

For what it's worth, there was a relatively recent short article in the Liahona on the subject, which mentioned the possibility of agreeing without being disagreeable. Also mentioned there is Proverbs 13: 10, which indicates that the spirit of contention is pretty much a spirit of pride. And, although it mentions that prayer -- humble prayer -- is a very useful place to start, it most definitely does not say we should never disagree.

(Do read that article. My summary does not do it justice.)

What if humble prayer leads you to think you should talk with your leader about your concerns? Is this allowed?

Let's look at some scriptures on offences, particularly Matthew 18: 15.

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

(If you have a little time, maybe you want to look in the Guide to the Scriptures under "Offend", or even look up offences in the Topical Guide, whether or not you let me try to persuade you here.)

This is repeated in Doctrine and Covenants 42: 88 through the end of the section. (Again, don't take my word for it. Please check this yourself.)

The key is that you should first (well, after praying for help and listening for answers from God), take the matter up privately -- "between thee and him alone". Don't gossip. Don't ask someone else to solve the problem for you. Don't look for reasons to doubt your brother or sister. Don't look for reasons he or she is wrong. Everyone, including you, falls short of the glory of God in this world.

Talk it over, to the extent possible, privately. Try hard to come to an agreement of some sorts privately. Only go over his or her head when you can't resolve it privately.

(Note that, in cases of abusive leaders, this step may not be possible or advisable without some modification. Don't try to do it alone first in such cases. 

If you think you can trust your bishop, make sure he knows what is going on. If you are not confident of the bishop, go to the stake president. If you are worried about him, as well, you may need to ask someone you trust to help find a leader in a different stake whom they trust. 

Cases of abuse go somewhat beyond what I cover here, even though most of the principles I attempt to present here do apply. Leaders who sin need to be warned just as much as others who sin, and abuses of power are sin.)

Coming to agreement -- What is so important about that? Doctrine and Covenants 42, at the beginning, talks about this a bit. But let's go back to Section 38, v. 32. This was their commandment to gather, and the reason. They are going to receive a law that would protect them from their enemies. In Section 40, v. 2, we see that a certain saint had been unable to gather because of the cares of the world.

And we need to back up to Section 1, vs. 19 21:

The ^aweak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man ^bshould not counsel his fellow man, neither ^ctrust in the arm of flesh—

But that every man might ^aspeak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world;

That faith also might increase in the earth;

Now we can read Section 41, vs. 2-4:

... ye shall assemble yourselves together to ^aagree upon my word; 3 And by the prayer of your faith ye shall receive my ^alaw, ...

It's best to read these for yourself, in context, by the way.

Now, in Section 42, v. 3, we see that we are blessed, if we can come to agreement on a thing and talk and pray about it. Read the whole section to see what they received.

And reading again at the end of Section 42, starting around v. 87, we see that when you do have to go over his or her head about church matters, you should try to keep it within the Church. Why? It has to do with stewardship, which I should take up next.

Maybe you can see doing this for your brother or sister in the gospel, but is this really allowed for leaders?

Is your leader not your brother or sister? Consider another verse in Matthew 18, vs. 6: You wouldn't want your brother or sister to be tossed in the sea with a millstone around his or her neck, just because the burdens of a calling were unbearable, now would you?

Continuing from verse seven through nine, keeping the Joseph Smith Translation in mind:

And a man’s hand is his friend, and his foot, also; and a man’s eye, are they of his own household.

The verses in the Joseph Smith Translation of Mark are perhaps more explicit:

And again, if thy foot offend thee, cut it off; for he that is thy standard, by whom thou walkest, if he become a transgressor, he shall be cut off.
... And if thine eye which seeth for thee, him that is appointed to watch over thee to show thee light, become a transgressor and offend thee, pluck him out.

Oh. Mark 8: 40 is itself a good verse to consider in the middle of all of this:

For he that is not against us is ^aon our part.

Read that in context, too.

Yes, I'm cherry-picking. No time to give a thorough scholarly analysis. But go read it for yourself. If you love your leaders, you don't want them cast off just because of some silly unresolved argument.

Now, because of our modern pseudo-mosaic laws, because of the false traditions we all grow up with in our separate cultures -- We all have them, they are not all the same, but we all have them ...

Because of false traditions, having explained the above, I need to tell you about stewardship, or the domain of responsibility, or the range of authority.

Doctrine and Covenants 104: 11-13:

... ye shall organize yourselves and appoint every man his ^astewardship; That every man may give an account unto me of the stewardship which is appointed unto him.

Here, we do not interpret "man" as male. That is one of those false ideas that developed as our modern society began to separate the man from the woman. Man here means human. Every human being has a stewardship given from God.

Elsewhere we find that the limits of our stewardships are dynamic. As we prove faithful, they expand, but as we prove faithless, they contract. That is a mystery I'll leave for you to go to God to learn. (At least, it would be too much of a side-tour here.)

But we are accountable to God, not humans, not human society for our stewardships.

Continuing in Section 104, vs. 15 - 17:

But it must needs be done in mine own ^away;

Not the ways of man. Nor of woman.

(I'm cherry-picking again. Go read it for yourself.)

Jumping a little, to verses 54 or so:

Behold, all these properties are mine, or else your faith is vain, ... And if the properties are mine, then ye are ^astewards; otherwise ye are no stewards.

What does it mean here?

If you want to be able to operate as a steward over what God has given you, you have to lose the attitude that what you have is yours to do what you damn well please with. You have to get rid of your pride, as fast as you are able. (It's an on-going process, because you keep discovering that things you thought were humble have been proud.)

You have to put yourself -- and your ego -- on the alter. You have to take some risks. You do the best that you can, but then when God tells you, you let God take the lead.

Here is an important thing.

Your bishop can represent God for you if you will let him, if you do not depend on him too much. See Doctrine and Covenenants 58: 26 - 28 for how you do that:

... for he that is ^acompelled in all things, the same is a ^bslothful and not a wise servant ...

and

... the power is in them, wherein they are ^aagents unto themselves.

Why should we be agents unto ourselves? Look in Section 93: around vs 30-31:

All truth is independent in that ^asphere in which God has placed it, to ^bact for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

Behold, here is the ^aagency of man, ...

Now the bishop's responsibility is primarily regarding the church, and especially not toward making choices for members, see verse 23:

Behold, the ^alaws which ye have received from my hand are the laws of the church, and in this light ye shall hold them forth. Behold, here is wisdom.

Section 58, not coincidentally, is where Edward Partridge is given his stewardship as a bishop. If I recall correctly, another had been called before him, but the other had not listened to the instructions in verse 20:

Let no man think he is ^aruler; but let God rule him that judgeth, ...

(Perhaps the man who had been called before misinterpreted a pronoun that follows in this verse. Again, I'm cherry-picking, read it for yourself. And don't forget to ask God, not me, what it means.)

Now, if you look up "bishop" in the dictionaries we humans use, you will discover that a bishop is a steward.

Recapping:

Stewardships are limited. But they should be respected.

To the extent possible, if I understand correctly, we should leave matters of one person's stewardship for him or her to work out between him or herself and God.

When we come under a person's stewardship, for example, as children come under their parents' stewardship, or as members come under a bishop's stewardship, if we fail to give feedback, they can't do their job. Giving too much feedback is another problem, of course, but we must not be silent all of the time.

Church stewardships are (supposed to be) mostly limited to church matters, and to things that we can legitimately help each other with as members, especially where they touch on church matters. We do want to help each other, but we also need to be somewhat cautious when that help extends beyond church matters. For instance, if it gets into business, church relationships should not blind us to the obligations of following proper and legal business practices. Likewise politics. These really extend beyond church stewardships.

I'm giving too much of my interpretation here.

This is another place where the domain and range of a stewardship need to be taken into account.

"Counsel" is a good word to look up in the Topical Guide and the Guide to the Scriptures when you need help analyzing your own approach, whether you are being too proud or too something, or whether you are not being bold enough.

But when a leader might be going south, and you try to approach the problem prayerfully and humbly, relying on God, not on man, doing what you can to avoid contention, it can be easy to just give up. Maybe you think patience is better. Be careful about this. It is also important to be bold in saying what needs to be said.

Remember Ezekiel 34. (Reading chapter 33 is also very enlightening, but we must remember that the commandment to warn is given with a stewardship. And there is a limit in ch. 33 on how much effort should be put into warning.)

We should want to help the shepherds of the flock do their duty. (Doctrine and covenants Section 81: 5. They need our feedback. Make sure you look it up and decide for yourself whether it means what you think I'm telling you.)

Finally, remember Mosiah 4: 27:

And see that all these things are done in wisdom and ^aorder; for it is not requisite that a man should run ^bfaster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order.

Or a woman. It is not requisite that a woman should run faster than she has strength, either.

Done in order. (And wisdom.) We don't want chaos to reign in the church.

That's why learning to disagree without being disagreeable, and to counsel with each other without counseling each other, without contending, is actually a really important thing, even though it can be very hard and even feel rather awkward at times.

We must not be silent. We can follow the Holy Spirit -- the Light of Christ within our hearts -- and give appropriate feedback.

Gender -- My Proclamation to the World

I didn't really start this blog to take a querulous approach to things, but lately it seems like a lot of people are almost deliberately misinterpreting the Church's Proclamation on Family.

What does it say in there on Gender?

I'll tell you several things I don't see it saying:

• Nowhere does it say that Machiavelli's philosophies on gender roles are any more correct than his example.
• Nowhere does it say that the 1830s social attitude towards gender roles were correct.
  
  • Nor the 1860s attitudes, 1880s attitudes, 1930s attitudes, 1960s attitudes, etc.
  • In fact, nowhere does it condone any of the world's philosophies that would make one gender subservient to the other, or one superior to the other.
  • On the contrary, it says husband and wife should be equal partners. You know, as in neither gets to lord it over the other kind of equal.
• Nowhere does it excuse one partner in abusing the other, or in abusing their children.
  • On the contrary, it says individuals who abuse spouse or children will have to answer to God.
  • Answering to God is something you would prefer to do as little of as possible. It's not big and scary God threatening you that you're going to hell so much as it is the pavements of hell finally meeting you in the face -- and you realize you've been there all this time, and even death doesn't let you out. 
  • And the only way out is talking it out with God (thinking, praying, listening) and finally doing what your conscience tells you you should have been doing all along -- no matter how much it hurts.
  • By the way, it does hurt, but getting it done with is a clean feeling that helps heal your hurt and might even help you undo some of the pain you've caused others.
• Nowhere does it say men can't like pink -- or fashionable clothes, or dancing, or just about anything that social customs or philosophies have tried to reserve to women.
• Neither does it say anywhere that women can't like hiking boots or power tools or running around in camouflage fatigues, etc.
• Nowhere does it say that men can't cry. (Women either.)
• Nowhere does it say that a woman should not care deeply for any man except the man she is married to. Nor does it say that a man should not care deeply for any woman other than the woman he is married to.
  • Caring deeply is not the same as sexual intercourse.
  • Caring deeply may sometimes feel as good as sex, but it is not sex.
  • Caring deeply is not tantamount to sex.
  • Caring deeply for each other is also something that can and should happen when people marry each other, even if they are of opposite gender.
• Nowhere does it say that men should not like men, or even love men deeply. (See above about caring deeply.)
• Nowhere does it say that women should not like women, or even love women deeply. (See above about caring deeply.)
• Nowhere does it say that a person should reject his or her inborn traits or talents.
  • Gender is one of those inborn traits/talents.
  • All traits or talents are neither inherently good nor inherently evil. They are good and evil only in how you use them. 
  • Inborn traits and talents are not binary.
• Nowhere does it say that the battle between the sexes is a good thing;
  • nowhere does it say that we should support that war,
  • nowhere does it say we should prolong that war,
  • nowhere does it say we should participate in that war.

It does say that a man's role is to preside. Perhaps it should have been more explicit and said, "preside as Jesus Christ presides over the Church", because that is exactly what the Church teaches. (The proclamation does, however, mention in several places that parents should follow the principles Jesus Christ taught.)

But that could also be misunderstood. Many who have never really read the New Testament or the Book of Mormon still seem to think that Jesus was an arbitrary tyrant or something.

He was not. He healed. Sometimes he called to repentance. He miraculously fed large crowds on at least two recorded occasions. He forgave people. He helped people understand truth.

He helped people.

But He did not force people to accept His help.

Even now, He waits for us to exercise faith in Him, to ask for His help, and to be willing to receive it.

Even trying to force us to be happy is something He doesn't do.

Ultimately, He died for us.

He rejected political authority. Sure, we can say He doesn't need it from us, but if you can see that far, look at how He rules over the world. Does He come down here with angels and big magic guns and force us all to do right?

Admitted, He has and does allow certain evil men to exercise their freedom to choose in setting up tyrannies and in trying to force us to be their version of happy, but that is not what He wants them to do.

(Hitler and those who urged him on used their freedom to try to force other people in this way. So did Lenin and those who came after him. Likewise those who lead certain modern religious and political extremist sects, which they usually confuse with political entities. So did many of the Crusaders, acting under a falsely claimed Christian banner that was anything but Christian. So have many others done throughout history. This is the Roman Empire. This is Babylon in all her glory. This is Cain's children.)

Understanding this does require us to trust that it is not what He wants them to do. And it requires us to trust that, in the worlds to come, He will make that up to those who are, who have been, and who will be so oppressed and aggressed against in our present world. In this world, He does ensure that every such tyranny is ultimately destroyed when it goes too far.

We, in our limited wisdom, would stop it before anyone got killed, or even hurt, but that would prevent us, as well, from making making the mistakes we must make before we can learn that such is not the path to happiness.

But He gives the tyrants also the opportunity to repent, if they will. (And He allows those who believe in Him to be tried, to see if we really are willing to follow His example. It hurts. I know. But, just because He lets things happen doesn't mean He wants us to be hurt. He wants us to be healed, and that means we must become able to see where we hurt.

We usually don't act until we feel the pain. When we have not learned to seek to change ourselves to be more like Jesus, we do not act until we feel the pain. That's why He lets us feel the pain. It moves us to learn that repenting hurts less than remaining anti-functional.)

He helped the Allies in World Wars I and II because the other side wanted to set up even more of those tyrannies. He was the ultimate relentless motivating influence that led to tearing down the wall between the two Berlins. His was the influence that enabled dissolution of the Soviet Union, and is now the influence that holds the tyrants among extremists in Russia, China, North Korea, Japan, the Arab countries, the USA, and elsewhere all over the world in check.

Jesus is not a tyrant, even though, for the sake of the individual freedom to choose wrong, He does allow people to make wrong choices that hurt other people.

As Elder Uchtdorf explained, Jesus Himself said that he was sent to be a servant to all. (For example, see Mark 10: 45, but start reading from verse 35 and think deeply about verse 45 when you get there.) This principle is echoed many places in the scriptures. Elder Uchtdorf was not being a loose cannon when he gave the talk I link at the beginning of this paragraph. This is orthodox Christian doctrine, and essential for both men and women to understand their priesthoods.

The proper presiding role is one of service, not of arbitrary posturing and decreeing what is to be.

Back to topics more obviously gender-oriented, it might be wondered how the Church can justify itself in asserting that our gender here is connected to our spiritual nature in the pre-birth state. Doesn't the evidence point to gender being a somewhat random result of genetics and environment?

I'm going to be a little truculent and offer a little personal opinion here.

Show me a truly successful sex change operation. I'm not interested in successful corrective surgery for this question, only a sex change operation in which a formerly functional male becomes able to conceive naturally, gestate, and carry a fetus to term and live birth.

And if you actually do succeed in that which has not yet been done, I'll shrug and say you've only succeeded in proving that the female characteristic is ostensibly the ability to conceive, gestate, and carry a fetus to term and live birth, and that you've succeeded in changing a male body to a female state.

If you could succeed in this, you wouldn't have proven what you think you would have.

Our gender is based on our personalities and other traits that we bring with us, although it usually gets modified somewhat by the environment we are born into and the environment we live in. These things are not for us to argue about here, they are between the individual and God. They are not for trying to embarrass people with. They are not for trying to force people about, one way or another.

They are especially not to be used as an excuse for sex outside marriage. And they are especially not for using to make political power with.

It has been this way from the beginning, but some have (again) made it a political topic in the last century, which has made it hard for a lot of people to let alone.

As far as corrective surgey goes, I think parents should limit their pursuit of corrective surgery to clear cases of serious danger to the health of the child (and should ignore perceived future threats to social well-being). The health dangers of corrective surgery appear to be greater than many would admit, greater, in fact than the possible benefits in most cases.

Doctors should not have been so anxious to perform surgery in the past, and they should not be so anxious now. Even when it is pursued for purposes of health, it should be as minimal as possible.

We should not worry ourselves about ambiguous sexual organs. Sex really isn't binary.

And we should especially not worry each other about ambiguous sexuality. We hang far too many social expectations on something that should be private, should not be expressed in the general social context.

About adults seeking correctve surger for themselves, they really need to weigh the costs carefully, and not depend on the opinions of any single group. I'd also suggest they make it a matter of prayer if they have any belief in God and prayer.

It makes much more sense, especially in our modern society, to assert the right of people to hold some physiological ambiguities derived from their birth.

I'd say likewise psychological, but we need to just completely quit trying to attribute non-physiological characteristics specifically to gender. Such things are statistical phenomena, and statistics are not proof of anything about individual cases. Individuals have a right to vary from the statistical mean by wide margins.

It makes far much more sense to assert the individual's right to be and do
things that some people might believe are typical of the other gender.

Now, as far as I know, there has never been a true hermaphrodite born, that is, someone who is able to both get pregnant by a man and get a woman pregnant. (I'm deliberately ignoring the question of impregnating self. It's a distracting flight of fancy.) If such a thing should happen, I'll still suggest that we should not ask that person to be any other than he/she is.

If we ever need to cross that bridge, if there ever is a true hermaphrodite, I think I would suggest allowing such a person to find her/his own solution to the question of mating.

Biologists, being forbidden by the scientistic requirement to ignore things not currently observable, can do nothing but talk about random mutations to explain certain genetic incidents. But I'm going to be a really bad boy and tell you a mystery.

The spirit of a child, while preparing for birth, has a certain range of freedom in influencing the growth of the fetus. The genes of the parents and certain mutation inducing external influences provide some limiting parameters, but the spirit of each child has some permission or ability to work within those parameters, to adjust the DNA to the traits that person brings from the spirit world.

Almost every mother knows this in her subconscious thoughts.

We ought to be a lot more careful about how we meddle with people's personal traits/affairs.

That said, why would I recommend against a person deciding, after birth he or she is an exception to the binary male/female principle?

Good question. Depends on how he or she wants to be an exception.

(We used to refrain from talking about these things, because even just talking about them could induce sexual excitement and cause people problems they didn't ask for. Culturally, we needed to find ways to talk about them that were not random songs, performances, books, movies, rants on blogs, etc. We have not yet found such ways, but we talk anyway now.)

Sexual intercourse is not safe. No matter how much people sell prophylaxis, it is not as safe as abstinence. And the dangers are not small.

Sexually transmitted diseases can be very debillitating, not to mention life-threatening. The treatments are not without side-effects, and the side-effects can be so bad that the only thing worse is the disease itself. You can't just take a pill and make it all better.

Sex also makes us subject to psychological and emotional intimacy issues. Sex just is not something to be safely enjoyed.

That's not the way nature built us -- to make sex safe. Maybe it seems unfair, but that's the way it is. (There is a reason sex is dangerous, if you care to think deeply about it, research it, and, if you believe in God, ask God about it.)

Sex is not an appropriate expression of love outside of the marriage relationship.

Even if marriage is not 100% effective, even if it is barely 70% effective or so, a social environment in which most people mostly limit their sexual intercourse to within marriage relationships is a lot more effective than any other means of preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

Likewise, pregnancy is not a small responsibility you can simply choose to prevent, undo, or ignore. Socially acknowledgint the expedient of limiting sex to within marriage is a good first step to reducing the incidence of uncared-for children.

More must be done after that first step, but encouraging random sex is not nearly as good a social position to start from.

Condoms and other latex prophylactic gadgets, and the spermicides that help them achieve better than 90% reliability, are not 100% reliable. They slip. They get pinprick holes. They are better than no protection, but they are not perfect.

And they cause health problems of their own. Everyone has at least a little latex sensitivity, and the genitals are rather susceptible to the effects. Spermicide also causes reactions.

Contraceptive pills muck with the hormones, among other things. That alone messes your health around and influences your thinking and your emotional states.

Abortion may need to be available for women when there is severe and unusual danger to the health of the woman or the fetus she is carrying, or in cases of rape or other sexual abuse. (And, while we need to be careful not to encourage unnecessary resort to abortion, we also need to be careful to let a woman decide for herself how willing she was, and also when and whether she is willing to raise the question of her own consent.)

No. We can't just outlaw it. Abortion should be an available alternative for cases where it is necessary, and it shouldn't be so hard to get that women who need the option are afraid to ask for it.

(Even a hundred years ago, the dangers of a woman receiving a mortal or permanently disabling wound in the procedures were great enough that trying to keep women, and especially the men who abuse women, from considering it as an option was not exactly unreasonable. The procedures are enough safer now that we can allow qualified doctors to present it as an option when there is need. I is still not safe, but we can consider it to be an acceptable alternative for many cases when the pregnancy is a significant danger to the mother's health, or is the result of rape.

But we still need to avoid encouraging men to think of it as an alternative for them. It must be the woman's choice, not the man's.)

It is still not a solution. Abortion still is often very hard on a woman's health, not to mention the unborn child's health. Usually, a woman can eventually recover, and we can hope a spirit can try again after an abortion, but, either way, it is not a thing to be done lightly.

We must not build the walls too high around obtaining an abortion, but we must also not build a slippy-slide into abortion clinics.

(Yes, it is tricky. But not nearly so tricky if both sides of the argument will trust the woman to make up her own mind. No propoganda against, no propoganda for; sufficient information available about obtaining an abortion, about the alternatives, and the consequences/risks of the various paths. And we need to develop a culture of family and friends respecting a woman's decisions about her body.

If we had that culture, there would be much less need for abortion.

But the illusion of free sex is not the way to change our culture for the better. It is not the way to achieve that culture.)

From the male point of view, admit it guys:

Men are not entirely unaffected by the ambiguities of what the woman does, either. There is something within us that wants to be happy at the prospect of cooperating with a woman to raise a child, especially a child that shares our genetic makeup. The responsibility is scary, but it there is something within us that wants to brave the responsibility -- in a permanent relationship with a woman who agrees to it.

We men have to get our collective act together and learn how to negotiate, how to wait until we find someone more-or-less compatible, and how to stick with it when we make the commitments. It's hard. It's supposed to be. It teaches us to grow up, to be real men. Not Machiavellian men, not macho men, real men who accept their responsibilities and do the work nature (or God, if you will) puts on us, to cooperate with a woman in raising children.

The macho image of the strong man is wrong. A real man cares enough to admit his involvement, to admit his hopes and fears, to talk about plans, and to negotiate for the future; but, in the end, to avoid coercion and to let the woman decide for herself. A real man supports the decisions of the woman.

(We need to learn how to train men better in how to be real men.)

Neither prophylaxis nor abortion is a solution to the apparent unfairness that sex is only an appropriate expression of love within a marriage relationship.

Sexual intercourse is, in a practical sense, tantamount to marriage. Wait. Let me translate that:

Sexual intercourse is an attempt to mate.

Mating, for sensient beings with any conscience, implies the assumption of mutual responsibilities, for both parties -- based on consent.

Put another way, in spite of legalistic theories to the contrary, consent is not really possible without invoking the responsibilities.

Nature is not happy when we attempt to do what is natural and then try to undo it. Wait. Let me translate that.

We can't folow one nature and then refuse to follow the natural consequences and expect to be happy. It is against our own nature.

It's far better to do things related to making babies within an admitted, acknowledged marriage relationship.

No, we are not justified in insulting or behaving meanly or abusively towards people who for any reason are not able to engage in the ordinary act of bringing children into this world and raising them within an ideal family.

But trying to alter the social and legal meaning of sex until it is just another way to get high is wrong, too.

I've referred to it above, but sex is not the only way to feel good about ourselves.

If we could, as a society, get our focus off of sex, we would find that there are other ways to get the endorphins and other natural drugs we have in our bodies to flow.

Time spent with people we care about is one. We don't need to be having sex or using drugs to feel good, if we will learn to let ourselves and each other feel good without the crutch of drugs.

Love doesn't have to be sexual.

Time spent helping others is another.

Time spent with people we care about, cooperating to help yet others is especially great.

Love doesn't have to be sexual. (Can we make this a meme?)

Time spent working on personal projects that matter to us, if we can accept that progress may be slower (or faster) than we want, is yet another way.

There are many good, often small ways to get small natural highs. A lot of small natural highs are much better than a few big unnatural highs that always bring you crashing down afterwards.

If we are busy using artificial drugs and engaging in artificial (including any outside-of-mutual-commitment) sex, we prevent the best effects of the natural drugs. We burn them up, we frustrate the purposes, our nervous and hormonal systems give the feedback, and we shut down the production of the natural drugs.

Attempting to prevent the shutdown, while we continue the self-frustrating attempts to have sex without consequences, just screws our programming up.

We don't need that, if we will choose to risk our hearts on what's real, instead.

And if we are busy trying to force others to be happy our way, that shuts down the natural ways to feel good about ourselves, too. Even if the other person is a close friend and we feel betrayed by his or her choices, we will be much happier if we satisfy ourselves with admitting to that person that we are disappointed, and then let them continue to go their path and ask them to let us continue to go ours.

If we can learn to be happy ourselves, we will find much less bad excuse to try to interfere with other people's attempts to be happy making choices that vary from our own. And, frankly, they will be much more likely to find happiness if we don't try to force them to do so our way.

Being open-minded about what other people do is essential for our own happiness.

And that's a good thing, because being around happy people actually helps everybody be happy.

These things are taught, really, in the scriptures. They are part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It's only if you read the Church's Proclamation on Families with your mind colored by false, mostly spurious social and cultural concepts of gender and sex that it seems to promote intolerance.

[JMR20200629: I have ranted in a somewhat more general, more philosophical vein on this, about gender here: https://reiisi.blogspot.com/2020/02/what-is-gender.html, and about sexuality here: https://reiisi.blogspot.com/2020/02/what-is-sexuality.html.]

Scripture of the Day-- Moroni 7: 34-48, esp. 45 (ca 1 Corinthians 13)

And charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

My wife said, "That's impossible!"

I guess I need to be more charitable towards my wife.

Getting Different Answers to Prayer

Something I've learned as a Mormon is that two people can ask what is apparently the same question and get different answers, and both be getting them from God. They may use the exact same words, and still get different answers.

Let's look at a few examples.

One person with ovarian cancer asks God what to do, and God tells her to have surgery and chemotherapy. Another person with ovarian cancer asks God what to do, and God tells her to change her diet.

Both end up getting well.

Okay, let's throw a third woman into the mix. She has the same problem, gets her answer from God, and she follows it and dies.

Some people will argue that this is proof that there is no God.

No two women are the same. The first appears to have been in a health situation where she needed to have the surgery. The second appears to have been in a health situation such that changing her diet removed the causal mechanisms of the cancer. The third appears to have been in a situation where God wanted her to return to her heavenly home. Maybe she needed to do things for her family over there that she couldn't do here.

Logically speaking, the above paragraph is hypothesis.

Facts: There are women who have had surgery and been healed. There are women who have changed their diet and been healed. And there are women who have taken other paths and been healed.

And there are woman who have not been healed.

We do not know all the causal relationships. And we most definitely do not have access to God's mind as to why certain people die while others live, at least not in every case. Not in very many cases at all.

At best, we can sometimes get a glimpse of God's mind and will towards us in cases which involve us or people close to us.

The point is that we are all different. We should not expect to have the same experiences. We should not expect the exact same answers when we pray.

Another well-known example is when a guy prays about a certain girl and gets revelation that he should marry her. But she prays and gets revelation that she should not marry him.

He does not know her situation perfectly, nor does he know all of her needs and wants. It may well be that, given his needs and wants and what he knows of her, she would be right for him. And yet it may at the same time be that, given her needs and wants, he would be wrong for her.

Thus, different answers. They seem to be asking the same question, but they are not.

Let's try another example. Two people pray about the truth of a certain book of scripture, say the Book of Mormon. One receives an answer that he should read it and learn truth from it. The other receives an answer that he should not read it.

Now, I can't say that both are getting answers from God, but I have learned that I also can't say neither is. Nor can I say that either is not.

How can this be? Either the book is true or it isn't.

Well, a person who, for reasons we may or may not know, reads passages such as 3 Nephi 12: 48 (Matthew 5: 48 -- "Be ye therefore perfect, ....") and simply can't see any other course but straight A-plusses at school, a mission to Russia where he converts and baptizes Putin, and marriage in the temple to a former Victoria's Secret model, might have reason to think twice about reading the Book of Mormon.

Or, especially, if he reads about Ammon defending Lamoni's flocks (Alma 17) and thinks it means he should run around at work or at the store with a sword.

On another hand, when I started reading the Book of Mormon, every time I read the word "repent", I thought the Lord was accusing me of being evil for not being perfect. But after five years of regularly reading it, I figured out that my understanding of perfection was as wrong as my interpretation of the intent of the call to repentance. That is to say, I quit thinking that I had to meet yesterday's arbitrary ideals yesterday.

I found truth in the Book of Mormon through reading it.

Sure, my answer was to read it in spite of my improper interpretations.

Others may have different paths to the truth, paths that require them to believe for a time that the Book of Mormon, as they understand it, is false. That does not seem to me to be a permanent problem.

It is far more important for each person, as an individual, to come to trust God, to understand that He wants us each to receive as much happiness (and truth) as we, as individuals, are willing to receive.

Now, we should not be surprised if we get similar answers to those others get, but we really should not be surprised to get different answers.

And it would help all concerned if we were more supportive of each other in seeking truth, even when we get different answers.

Vocabulary and Grammar from the Sacrament

Japanese vocabulary and grammar for the ordinance of the Sacramental blessing of the bread:

永遠 (えいえん= e.i-e.n) : eternity

の (no) : genetive particle, like "of", but post-position instead of pre-position.

永遠の (eien-no) : of eternity => eternal

父 (ちち＝chi.chi) : father

なる (na-ru) : be, become

父なる(chichi-naru) : father (adjective, from "being father")

神 (かみ = kami) : god (god/angel/spirit/intelligence)

父なる神 (Chichi-naru Kami) : God, the Father

よ (yo) : directive/directional particle, like "to", but post-position

神よ (Kami yo) : "(Hey,) God!"; "Oh God, ..." -- addressing God

永遠の父なる神よ (eien-no chichi-naru kami yo) : "Oh, God, the Eternal Father"

私 (わたし = watashi) : I, me (Also pronounced "watakushi" (masculine) and "atasi" (feminine).)

私達 (わたしたち = watashi-tachi) : we, us (those who are in the same class/group as me)

は (ha => "wa") : topical particle (post-position) (Pronounced as "wa" when used as particle.)

私達は (watashi-tachi wa) : we (grammatical subject form, sort-of)

子 (こ = ko) : child

御子 (おんこ = On-ko) : (honorific child =>) the Son

イエス (i.e.su) : Jesus

キリスト (ki.ri.su.to) : Christ

名 (な = na) : name

御名 (みな = Mi-na) : honorific name

に (ni) : indicative particle (in, through, by, of, for) (post-position)

による (ni yo-ru) : to be through, in, or by something (verbal)

によって (ni yo-t.te) : through (adverbal)

イエスキリストの御名によって (Iesu Kirisuto no Mi-na ni yotte) : ... in the name of Jesus Christ

貴方 (あなた = a.na.ta) : you (honorific)

貴方に (anata ni) : you (grammatical object form), "to you"

願う (ねがう = ne.ga-u) : desire, wish, hope

求める (もとめる = mo.to-me.ru) : seek, desire

願い求める (nega-i-motome-ru) : seek/ask/request (a favor)

ます (ma-su) : increase (polite ending of verbs)

わたしたちは御子イエス・キリストの御名によってあなたに願い求めます (watashi-tachi wa On-ko Iesu Kirisuto no Mi-na ni yotte anata ni nega-i-moto-me-masu) : "... we ask (thee) in the name of (thy) Son, Jesus Christ ...".
(Note that "Anata" here can be ambiguous, applying to someone of higher rank/class, or, as in the case of a wife, to a close familiar of higher rank such as a husband. It is not, however, the general familiar that "thee" was when the Bible was first translated to English.)

この (ko.no) : this (adjective)

パン (pa.n) : bread (via Portuguese)

を (wo => "o") : objective particle (post-position) (The "w" is almost never pronounced.)

頂く (いただく = i.ta.da-ku) : partake (receive) (Used especially with food, but not limited to food. Often used in polite grammar. The set phrase, 「いただきます。」 ("Itadakimasu.") is often spoken before eating a meal to express gratitude for the food -- both specific and abstract.)

このパンを頂く (pan-wo itada-ku) : partake of this bread (May be used to modify the following noun or noun-phrase.)

全て (すべて = su.be-te) : all, a complete set

全ての (subete-no) : all (of something)

人 (ひと = hi.to) : person

人々 (ひとびと = hito-bito) : people


が (が = ga) : true subjective particle (post-position)

このパンを頂く全ての人々が (kono pan wo itada-ku subete-no hito-bito ga) : "All (people) who partake of this bread" (Constructed as the subject of the sentence.)

体 (からだ = ka.ra.da) : body


記念 (きねん = ki.ne.n) : memorial

御子の体の記念に (Onko no karada no kinen ni) : "... in remembrance of the body of (thy) Son ..."

これ (ko.re) : this (noun)

頂ける (いただける = i.ta.da-ke.ru) : can be partaken

ように (yo.u-ni) : in some way, "that"

これを頂けるように (kore wo itada-keru yō-ni) : that (they) may partake

御子の体の記念にこれを頂けるように (On-ko no karada no kinen ni kore wo itada-keru yō-ni) : " "... that (they) may (eat) in remembrance of the body of (thy) Son ..."

また (ma.ta) : and

進む (すすむ = su.su-mu) : proceed, move forward

進んで (su.su-n.de) : proceeding (adverb), moving forward => willingly

受ける (うける = u-keru) : receive, accept

進んで御子の御名を受け (susu-nde On-ko no Mi-na wo u-ke) : willingly (taking upon them) the name of (thy) Son => "... that (they) are willing to (take upon them) the name of (thy) Son,"

いつ (i.tsu) : when

いつも (i.tsu-mo) : whenever, at all times

覚える (おぼえる = o.bo-e.ru) : remember, recall

いつも御子を覚え (itsu-mo On-ko wo obo-e) : always remembering (thy) Son => "... that they do always remember Him,"

与える (あたえる = a.ta-e.ru) : give, present with (equal rank)

くださる (ku.da-sa.ru) : give (from higher rank to lower rank)

くださった (ku.da-sa.t.ta) : gave

戒める (いましめる = i.ma.shi-me.ru) : command, order (verb)

戒め (imashi-me) : command(s) (noun) => commandment(s)

守る (まもる = ma.mo-ru) : obey, protect, keep

こと (ko.to) : thing, that

御子が与えて下さった戒めを守ることを (On-ko ga ata-ete kuda-satta imashi-me wo mamo-ru koto wo) : that (they will) keep the commandments which (thy Son) gave them (Constructed as the object of the sentence.)

** Note that "koto wo" actually collects several phrases as objects through the grammatical construction, including the quasi gerund forms (obo-e, u-ke) and the word "mata".


証明 (しょうめい = sho.u-me.i) : proof, witness (noun)

証明する (しょうめいする = shōmei-suru) : witness (verb), testify

あなたに証明して (anata ni shōmei-shite) : witessing to (thee) => that (they may) witness unto (thee)

御霊 (みたま = mi-ta.ma) : (the) spirit, the Holy Spirit

受けられる (u-ke.ra.re.ru) : to be received, can receive

いつも御子の御霊を受けられるように (itsu-mo Onko no Mitama wo u-kerareru yō-ni) : that (they) may always receive the Spirit of (thy) Son => "that they may always have (His) Spirit (with them)"

祝福 (しゅくふく = shu.ku.fu.ku) : blessing

祝福する (shukufuku-suru) : bless (verb)

清める (きよめる = ki.yo-me.ru) : purify

聖める (きよめる = ki.yo-me.ru) : sanctify

ください (ku.da-sa.i) : (Please.)

このパンを祝福し、聖めてください。 (kono pan wo shukufuku-shi, kiyo-mete kuda-sai.) : (Please) bless and sanctify this bread.

アーメン (a.a.me.n) : amen

---

Additional Japanese vocabulary and grammar for the ordinance of the Sacramental blessing of the bread: 

水 (みず = mi.zu) : water

(Old kana: みづ。 Also, compare 湯 (ゆ = yu): hot water.)

For reference:
葡萄 (ぶどう = bu.do.u) : grape
酒 (さけ = sa.ke) : (rice) wine
酒 (しゅ = shu) : distilled (alcoholic) spirits
葡萄酒 (ぶどうしゅ = budō-shu) : grape distillates, ergo, grape wine

この水を頂く全ての人々が (kono pan wo itada-ku subete-no hito-bito ga) : "All (people) who drink of this water" (Constructed as the subject of the sentence.)

為 (ため = ta.me) : the good/sake (of), the cause (of), the benefit (of)

為に (ために = tame-ni) : for the sake/benefit of, because of

この人々のために (kono hito-bito no tame-ni) : for the sake of these people


流れる (ながれる = na.ga-re.ru) : flow (verb)

流す (ながす = na.ga-su) : (cause to) flow, wash (verb, separate from "cleanse")

For reference:
洗う (あらう = a.ra-u) : wash, cleanse
洗い流す (ara-i naga-su) : wash clean

流される (ながされる = na.ga-sa.re.ru) : be caused to flow, (honorific) cause to flow

血 (ち = chi) :

流された血 (naga-sareta chi) : blood which has been shed

この人々のために流された御子の血 (kono hito-bito no tame-ni naga-sareta On-ko no chi) : the blood of the Son, which was shed for these people => "the blood of (thy) Son which was shed for (them)"

覚えている (おぼえている = o.bo-e.te.i.ru) : be remembering

いつも御子を覚えていることを (itsu-mo On-ko wo obo-eteiru koto wo) : that (they) are always remembering the Son => "that (they) do always remember (Him)"

---

Note that, as in the English prayers, this uses vocabulary and grammar that would not ordinarily be used outside these prayers.

Hopefully, I will be able post a series of blogs that show how to say these kinds of things in ordinary prayers and conversation, later.